SANTA CRUZ -- A Santa Cruz County judge began ruling this week on what evidence will be allowed into the trial of a Felton man accused of killing his girlfriend in a 2010 dispute.

Prosecutors and Richard Chavez' defense attorneys began presenting pretrial motions Monday and could continue through the week because of the numerous complex legal issues involved.

Defense attorneys have characterized the death of Deanna Dudley as a textbook example of manslaughter, though the Santa Cruz County District Attorney's Office has charged Chavez with first-degree murder. State law defines murder as unlawful killing of another person with malice, whether implied or explicit.

"We believe -- in a calculated fashion -- Chavez murdered Ms. Dudley and made calculated decisions to deal with it (the aftermath,)" Deputy District Attorney Jeff Rosell said in court Monday.

Dudley and Chavez got into a fight in February 2010 over watching the Winter Olympics and Dudley was hit several times in the head with a flashlight, authorities said previously. She later died of a cerebral hemorrhage. Defense attorneys Mark Briscoe and Anthony Robinson have argued Dudley had a violent streak, and plan to present evidence of this.

The defense Wednesday presented a motion asked the judge to exclude certain testimony from the prosecution's domestic violence expert. Prosecutors Rosell and Michael Gilman hope to present an expert to testify about why a person would stay in an abusive relationship or why a victim of domestic violence might later change or recant their statements.

Advertisement

Judge Stephen Siegel declined to rule on this Wednesday, saying it would depend on what other evidence is brought into the trial before that witness is scheduled to testify.

Among other issues are which of Chavez' prior convictions the prosecution may be allowed to impeach him with -- that is, use to cast doubt on his credibility if he testifies. Siegel has ruled he only will allow some of the convictions to be admissible for impeachment purposes.

Under state law, a judge has discretion to exclude evidence of past convictions when the evidentiary value of it is outweighed by the risk of prejudicing jurors. The decision relies heavily on the concept of moral turpitude, a somewhat nebulous term for conduct determined to be depraved and contrary to the accepted rules of morality.

"It's really important to bring out everything that speaks to his credibility," Gilman said in court. "If we have the ability to impeach him based on his credibility and his past acts, I think we should be able to."

Briscoe has contended that many of the prior acts are too old and not relevant to the case to be included.

"I don't think what happened 10 years ago is relevant to what happened the night of this incident," he said.